Movies: Ralph Breaks the Internet

Voices By: John C. Reilly, Sarah Silverman, Gal Gadot, Taraji P. Henson, Alan Tudyk
Directed by: Phil Johnston, Rich Moore
Written by: Phil Johnston & Pamela Ribon (screenplay); Rich Moore, Phil Johnston, Jim Reardon, Pamela Ribon, Josie Trinidad (story)
Walt Disney, 2018
PG; 102 minutes
3.5 stars (out of 5)

_______________________________________________________

Okay, so I'm going to make a big confession here: I never saw Wreck-It Ralph. I've had it explained to me, and I've seen enough scenes from it that I basically understand the story, and I've just never felt compelled to sit down and watch it (no matter how many people told me how great it is—or maybe because of that).

So maybe you have to already be a fan to 100% love this movie. I only kind of liked it. I thought the representation of the Internet was great, and there are definitely some cute moments, but either I already needed to love the main characters or... Something.

The story: Vanellope is bored. The levels in her game are all the same, nothing ever changes. So Ralph tries to make her feel better by creating a new racing track in her game. The result: the girl playing the game at the time breaks the steering wheel and Mr. Litwak can't afford to buy another one (the only one being on eBay since the game manufacturer is out of business), so he plans to scrap Sugar Rush.

Clearly, this is a problem. But thanks to Mr. Litwak also recently joining the 21st century by acquiring Wi-Fi, Ralph and Vanellope are able to jump online in search of that elusive steering wheel. Hilarity ensues? I mean, to some extent, I guess so. But none of it made me truly laugh. Maybe I'm just too hardhearted. Or am not the target audience.

The major conflict is that Ralph wants to get the steering wheel and get back to life as they know it. Meanwhile, Vanellope has now been exposed to the wider world and wants to stay in an online racing game called Slaughter Race. The theme of the movie then pursues rather predictable and tired lines: following one's dreams, friendship, "Let It Go," etc. In fact, the whole thing is a bit heavy handed for my tastes, and while I can see that much of what happens (no spoilers) is Ralph's fault, the fact that Vanellope is never called out on some of her behavior bothers me.

Largely, I enjoyed the style of the film. However, the attempts to thrust what I suppose counts as "substance" down my throat... Sure, I want substance in my movies. But there is such a thing as too much, and this movie definitely works overtime to make sure I "get it."

Bottom line: cute but a bit too pointed with its message. I don't really like Ralph or Vanellope, so again, maybe I needed to see the first one in order to appreciate the characters here. As things stand, though, I give this a slightly better than middling score. It's entertaining but—at least for me—nothing special.

Movies: Teen Titans Go! To the Movies

Voices by: Scott Menville, Tara Strong, Greg Cipes, Khary Payton, Hynden Walch, Will Arnett, Kristen Bell, Nicolas Cage, Michael Bolton
Directed by: Aaron Horvath, Peter Rida Michail
Written by: Michael Jelenic & Aaron Horvath from characters created by Jerry Siegel, Joe Shuster, Marv Wolfman, George Pérez, Arnold Drake, Bob Kane, Bill Finger, William Moulton Marston
Warner Bros., 2018
PG; 84 minutes
4 stars (out of 5)

_______________________________________________________

Every time we travel as a family, it seems like at some point we turn on a hotel television and Teen Titans Go! is on. We do it as a way to entertain the kids while we (the adults) try to relax for a few minutes before whatever next big thing, but we always get sucked in and end up watching too. And it's so . . . dumb. But it never fails to make me laugh.

If you're thinking a Teen Titans Go! movie is more or less an extended episode, you're not entirely wrong. You're not entirely right, though, either. I think the humor is more sustainable in smaller bites, but there is plenty here to amuse. The general plot is: Robin really wants a superhero movie to be made about him. So the Teen Titans try to make that happen. They're told that a superhero has to have an arch-nemesis, and they find one in the form of Slade. It goes from there in predictable fashion, with a few songs thrown in.

As I mentioned, there are a number of funny moments. However, the relentless focus on Robin (who, for me, is the least interesting of the characters), and the need to push some jokes into your face rather than let them play in the background (yes, I know, typical of the show), lessened the joy. Not by a ton, but by enough to notice the debit.

Still, I found myself laughing in spite of myself. Which is really all this movie is required to do: entertain and make people laugh. In which case it does a fairly solid job of it.

Movies: Incredibles 2

Voices By: Craig T. Nelson, Holly Hunter, Catherine Keener, Bob Odenkirk, Samuel L. Jackson, Sarah Vowell, Huck Milner
Directed by: Brad Bird
Written by: Brad Bird
Disney/Pixar, 2018
PG; 118 minutes
4 stars (out of 5)

_______________________________________________________

A lot of people are loving this movie, and I agree it's pretty cute. But I wasn't as wowed as I expected to be.

I2 picks up right where the first movie left off 14 years ago. The Underminer is attacking, the Parr family must work together (along with Frozone) to neutralize the threat. It doesn't go quite to plan, and superheroes are again slapped with the blame for massive destruction despite their best efforts and intentions.

Then in steps siblings Winston and Evelyn Deavor. (It wasn't lost on me that both first names end in a sound to almost make it "endeavor"? Which feels kind of pointless, but whatever. Ha! "Whatever, Deavor.") Anyway, these two run a huge telecomm company, and they want to find a way to make superheroes legal again. Cue nostalgic back story about how their dad had loved supers and not long after superheroes were made illegal, their dad was killed in a break-in. (I also noticed the dad in the flashbacks looked a wee bit like Ed Catmull? Might've been my imagination though.)

The Deavors choose Helen/Elastigirl as the new face of superhero-dom. Which leaves Robert/Mr. Incredible home with the kids. Hilarity ensues, except not really. At least, not for me. Plenty of people around me laughed, but I was only kind of amused.

My chief problem was the way the film leaned so heavily on Jack-Jack. Sure, he's a cute gag (and in some cases a deus ex machina), but I find it funnier in smaller doses like in the first movie. Meanwhile, Violet and Dash had nearly nothing to do.

Also, the "twist" wasn't one. It was heavily telegraphed, so maybe it wasn't meant to be a surprise. I don't know.

All that said, let's talk about the subtext. One of the arguments in the movie is that people do less when superheroes are around because they expect those heroes to save them. It's a message that feels relevant right now. We all mutter about the problems in society, but we don't act because we expect others will do that for us. Which is a bit backward for a film in which we're supposed to be rooting for the supers, but maybe the flip side is that THOSE WITH POWER SHOULD USE IT TO THE BENEFIT OF SOCIETY. Rather than, say, selling it to the highest bidder? Just a thought.

On the whole, I enjoyed it. Just not as much as I thought I would. But that probably would have been asking too much. The first Incredibles movie was such an unexpected delight, so different from pretty much anything else out there. Now superhero movies are a dime a dozen, and the 14-year hiatus gives us time to build [potentially unrealistic] expectations.

I2 is a good movie. It's making a ton of money, too. Not that box office has ever been a very good indicator of quality. But I can recommend this one as a fun and entertaining diversion, even if it doesn't reach the higher heights.

Movies: Coco

This is a sweet movie, if rote by Pixar standards. That is to say, if you've seen enough Pixar movies, you can anticipate every beat in this film well ahead of time.

Coco feels like a slight misnomer since the main character is Miguel, Coco's great-grandson. He comes from a family of successful shoemakers, and the entire opening sequence is Miguel explaining that his great-great-grandmother Imelda had once fallen in love with a musician, and when that unnamed musician left Imelda and their daughter Coco, music became forbidden in their family.

Drastic much?

Info dump aside, the sequence is charmingly depicted with colorful cutouts and sets the stage for the rest of the story, which predictably is about how Miguel loves music and wants to be a musician. On Día de Muertos, Miguel is so desperate to participate in a musical talent show he attempts to steal a guitar from the crypt of a famous local musician. This causes him to be swept into the . . . underworld? Well, the world of the dead, anyway. He then has until sunrise to get his family's blessing and return to the world of the living, else he'll be stuck with the dead forever.

Of course, his deceased family won't give him their blessing because Miguel refuses to give up his dream of becoming a musician.

And so it goes.

Like most Pixar movies, this one aims for the heartstrings. It's colorful and a tad saccharine. I enjoyed it but do wish Pixar would find some other tone. Their work feels very one note to me, all with the same earnestness. And that's what people like about them, I guess, but for me it's starting to be dull. Well, that and all the sequels. (If you need fresh ideas, Pixar, feel free to swing by for a chat.)

Still, I enjoyed this more than, say, Up. Then again, I didn't like Up, so maybe that's not saying much.

Movies: Despicable Me 3 (or, Despicable M3)

Ugh.

Okay, I've never seen the first two movies in this franchise, so maybe I was just coming in at the wrong point. But based on the previews—which were really just the first full scene of the movie—I thought this was going to be cute and funny. It was neither.

Here's what I knew going in:

• Gru used to be a villain but now he was some kind of agent who fought villains
• There were Minions

Honestly, you don't have to know much more than that to understand the dynamic. Gru has a wife named Lucy who is also an agent (it's called the Anti-Villain League, or AVL), and they've adopted three girls. You can glean that from the story without having to know it ahead of time. Also, I've just told you.

The real problem with this movie (besides the Minions, who I hate with a passion that blazes like a million suns) is that it's crazy disjointed. It starts with that opening scene we all saw in the trailers: Gru fighting 80s-loving villain Balthazar Bratt (Trey Parker, the only good thing in this movie). Then it goes on to be about Gru discovering he has a twin brother, and that he comes from a line of pig-farming villains. There is exactly no tension. No laughs. The movie attempts to set up jokes and gags, but none of them are funny. Plot lines like the one about the boy who has a crush on Margo get squashed and kicked to the curb without serving any real purpose. (Yes, okay, it was supposed to bring Lucy and Margo closer, I guess? But there was never enough discord between them for us to feel gratified by that story thread.)

Meanwhile, the Balthazar Bratt stuff takes a back seat, which is a shame because, as I mentioned, he's the only truly entertaining thing about the movie. Sure, he's pretty one-note, but that note is way more interesting than anything else that's going on. That's not saying much, but there you have it.

In some ways, D-Me 3 feels like two stories Frankensteined together. The writers wanted to tell about this Bratt guy, and they wanted to do this family story, so they did both and neither came out well.

Minor spoiler posed as a question: If Lucy saved Gru and Dru at Bratt's lair, how did they get their speedboat back? (I'm going to go out on a limb and assume Bratt drove it back to Dru's when he came to get back the diamond? Still, sloppy work not making that clear. Also, why is the giant Bratt mecha under water?)

In short, this is a really terrible movie. My husband laughed, but only at the faces I made while watching. "I can't remember the last time a movie made you this angry," he told me.

It was just . . . so bad. So very, very bad.

Movies: The LEGO Ninjago Movie

Voices By: Jackie Chan, Dave Franco, Justin Theroux, Fred Armisen
Directed By: Charlie Bean, Paul Fisher, Bob Logan
Written By: Bob Logan, Paul Fisher, William Wheeler, Tom Wheeler, Jared Stern, John Whittington (screenplay); 7 other people, except a few are the same people (story)
Warner Bros., 2017
PG; 101 minutes
4.25 stars (out of 5)

_______________________________________________________

So on the LEGO movie spectrum, I liked this one almost as much as The LEGO Movie and quite a bit more than The LEGO Batman Movie.

Dave Franco voices Lloyd Garmadon, son of the world's greatest villain. Lloyd has just turned 16, and he's hated by pretty much everyone simply because his dad is the worst. Of course, Lloyd is secretly one of the Ninjas that defend the city every time Garmadon (Justin Theroux) attacks. It's a sweet gig but Lloyd is naturally conflicted. He longs to have a father-son relationship, but how is that possible when his dad (a) left when he was a baby, and (b) is an evil tyrant?

During a particularly vicious battle between the Ninjas and Garmadon's army, Lloyd takes the nigh unforgivable step of using The Ultimate Weapon. It only makes things worse and hands Garmadon a victory. So Lloyd must go in search of the Ultimate Ultimate Weapon to make things right again.

The story is simplistic and predictable, but there's enough humor to keep things going. Jackie Chan is a natural as the voice of Master Wu, who also happens to be Lloyd's uncle and Garmadon's brother. A live-action frame story featuring Chan as the proprietor of a cluttered shop is also very cute, if stereotypical.

I do feel like there could have been more in-depth introductions to the other Ninjas. I've never watched the television show, so maybe that's something I'm already supposed to be familiar with. And I get that this is a kids' movie and character development isn't necessarily a focus. But it just seems to me that they could have done a wee bit more there. (This may be a bi-product of writing by committee.)

But overall, a cute movie, and my kids really enjoyed it, which was kind of the point. The fact that I liked it as much as I did is a bonus.

Movies: Cars 3

Voices by: Owen Wilson, Cristela Alonzo, Chris Cooper, Nathan Fillion, Armie Hammer
Directed By: Brian Fee
Written By: Kiel Murray, Bob Peterson, Mike Rich (screenplay); Brian Fee, Ben Queen, Eyal Podell, Jonathon E. Stewart (story)
Pixar, 2017
G; 109 minutes
4.5 stars (out of 5)

_______________________________________________________

I really enjoyed this movie, and I struggled over how many stars to give it. I might, with time and/or persuasion, think of it as a five-star film.

Truth is, I liked the first Cars movie, was indifferent to the second, and had no real expectations for this one. But of course it's when you have no high hopes that it's easy to be wowed. So many people really disliked Cars 2, almost anything would have been an improvement. However, Pixar still made a solid film that stands tall in its own right.

Going back to what worked before, the story here is that Lightning McQueen (Wilson) begins to lose races and suffers a crisis of confidence because of this. Younger, flashier cars with newer, better features are displacing McQueen's "generation." After a horrific crash, McQueen decides he just needs to train faster and harder, but it becomes increasingly clear that he has limits—he just isn't as fast as the rookies. So he needs to be smarter instead.

When his corporate sponsors are bought by a mud-flap billionaire, McQueen is assigned a personal trainer named Cruz Ramirez (Alonzo). But it's McQueen who teaches Cruz a thing or two about old-school ways of training. They survive a demolition derby and seek out Doc Hudson's old mentor Smokey (Cooper).

McQueen must win the first race of the season or be forced by his new owner to retire to a life of pitching products and selling his name.

There's nothing surprising here, no big twists; Cars 3 shows you the map well ahead of the journey. Still, it's an enjoyable ride. They do a fine job of making the demolition derby terrifying, and I, at least, am grateful for the lack of Mater in this installment. After hinging Cars 2 on him, someone finally figured out less is more when it comes to that particular sidekick character.

Still, while there are real jerks in this movie—McQueen's new boss, and the flashy new Jackson Storm—it lacks any real villain. This is more about becoming a better you than about beating anyone else. Which is fine, but may be lost on the younger crowd. In fact, I noticed a marked restlessness in the cinema whenever the story got quiet or introspective.

But there are plenty of races and racing scenes to keep the kids largely engaged. I, for one, would like to see it again in a cinema without a mostly juvenile audience to distract me. In short, this is easily my favorite of the Cars films, though that's not saying much. And I still have a lot of questions about the way this world of theirs functions. The Sistine Chapel is referenced and someone does a cover of a Bruce Springsteen song, so . . . People did exist at one time? Or in this parallel universe does the Sistine Chapel feature a mechanic creating the first car? Why is there a school bus if there are no children to ride it? Should a bus for cars be a car carrier? Cruz mentions going to school, too . . . Driving school? Do "young" cars drive on a learner's permit? How do they grow? I just . . . I know it's a kids' movie and all for fun, but some of these details really need to be hammered out.

Oh, and why in one scene does McQueen have functioning headlights? I thought they were stickers?

::SMH::

It would be easy to go down the rabbit hole. Try not to think about it too much. Just enjoy the show.

Movies: The LEGO Batman Movie

This was . . . okay. Not as funny and cute as The LEGO Movie. I think maybe the Batman character, as portrayed in the LEGO movie(s), is better in small snippets rather than 100+ minutes.

Part of the problem may also be that The LEGO Movie had original characters while here Batman is necessarily circumscribed by his known self and the DC Universe.

Also, a lot of this seemed rushed and not fully explored. Why have Voldemort and Daleks, etc. and not use them to full potential?

As for the plot, it was generally this: Barbara Gordon takes over as Commissioner of Gotham City and believes there is no longer any need for Batman because look at how long he's been on the job and there's as much crime in Gotham as ever. Not a bad point. Meanwhile, Joker is upset that Batman won't "commit" to their hate-ship. When Batman sends the Joker to another dimension, one filled with bad guys (see aforementioned Daleks et al), the Joker brings these baddies back to Gotham. Hilarity does not ensue. Instead a rushed and chaotic battle of the kind one usually sees in Avengers movies occurs. Meh.

Oh, and there's Robin spending all his time trying to find ways to call Batman his "dad" without offending him.

Except maybe for the would-be bromance between Batman and Joker, I wasn't all that hugely amused by this movie. It wasn't terrible, just not as laugh-out-loud funny as I expected, which means I was disappointed in the end. Maybe Unikitty needs her own movie instead.

Movies: Moana

I really liked this movie. Like, really.

The story is fairly simple: Moana, daughter of the chieftain, is chosen by the ocean to be the one to find the demigod Maui and take him to return the Heart of Te Fiti, a kind of earth goddess. The idyllic life of Moana's people is on the line.

The movie isn't perfect. The two encounters—one with coconut pirates, one with a crab that collects shiny things—were not particularly tense and felt like minor speed bumps rather than major conflicts. And the twist (I won't give it away) was obvious to me from the start. I didn't even think Maui was all that funny or clever.

So . . . If all that . . . Why did I like this movie so much?

I'm not entirely sure. I can tell you it's gorgeous to look at. I can tell you the music is the best a Disney movie has had in a long, long time. But in the end, the movie simply spoke to something in me. I found myself tearing up at the weirdest moments. And I'm steadfastly not a cryer.

So maybe this is a very personal kind of connection. Your mileage may vary. But, despite minor points, I think this is a fabulous movie.

P.S. The short before the film was also cute. It wasn't saying anything new, but it did get across its message in a fun way.

Movies: Kubo and the Two Strings

Featuring Voices By: Charlize Theron, Art Parkinson, Ralph Fiennes, Matthew McConaughey, Rooney Mara
Directed By: Travis Knight
Written By: Marc Haimes & Chris Butler, from a story by Shannon Tindle & Marc Haimes
Laika, 2016
PG; 101 minutes
5 stars (out of 5)

_______________________________________________________

Laika is steadily building its reputation and brand after Coraline, ParaNorman, The Boxtrolls, and now Kubo and the Two Strings. They're known for visually interesting work. ParaNorman and Boxtrolls were a bit lighter in tone (if not color), but Kubo is closer to Coraline in overall feel.

The story is set in ancient China. Kubo lives with his mother and earns his daily bread by telling stories in the village and using magic to have origami creatures act the stories out. But the story he's telling—it's like an ongoing saga—is rooted in his own life and that of his mother and dead father. Kubo gets the story piecemeal from his mother who sometimes cannot remember things. And so Kubo himself does not know what is true and what is fiction.

He finds out when his mother's sisters come to try and steal his eye. Kubo's grandfather is the Moon King and wants to take Kubo's eye to make him blind to humanity. I'll admit I had to try and explain the motivations to my kids afterward; it felt a bit abstract. But otherwise, it's an engaging, beautifully lyrical story. It has a fair amount of humor (though at times it feels like the writers were trying too hard with Beetle's lines, and Matthew McConaughey seemed to be channeling Tim Allen circa Buzz Lightyear). Still, there is a gentle growth of love and friendship amongst the characters that is very well done. Kudos to them, since that's one of the most difficult things to develop in a film.

Yes, some of the turns were a tad predictable. But that didn't detract from the overall story or my enjoyment. This is probably my favorite of the Laika movies; I'd have to go watch Coraline again to be certain. My kids roundly proclaimed it their favorite. My savvy 10-year-old wondered aloud how it will stand up to Zootopia come awards season. Both films are so good in very different ways. It will be interesting to see how things play out.

Movies: The Secret Life of Pets

Featuring Voices By: Louis C.K., Eric Stonestreet, Kevin Hart, Albert Brooks, Ellie Kemper
Directed By: Yarrow Cheney & Chris Renaud
Written By: Cinco Paul, Ken Daurio, Brian Lynch
Universal, 2016
PG; 87 minutes
2.5 stars (out of 5)

_______________________________________________________

Well, okay. The previews made this movie appear really cute, though even then I had to wonder how they were going to turn it into 90 minutes of entertainment. This is more the stuff of a running comic strip than a film.

Turns out they didn't do anything particularly clever or new.

The story is of Max (see, not even an original pet name), voiced by Louis C.K., and how he deals with having a new dog named Duke (Stonestreet) being adopted by his owner Katie (Kemper). Typical sibling displacement tale laid over the cute-funny of talking animals.

A few things bothered me. For one, though all the other pets can talk, the parakeet does not. The hawk talks, but the parakeet doesn't? Why?

And didn't all those animals come home dirty and smelly? They were in sewers, for Christ's sake. Why don't their owners notice?

Also, given the current tension in our country, the role of Kevin Hart as a gangster-like, gore-loving, vengeful bunny who really just needs human love is borderline offensive yet played for laughs. Right up to his idolizing his fallen gang members.

The Secret Life of Pets is a largely predictable romp that has but a few moments of real fun, including Max and Duke hallucinating Grease's "We Go Together" in a sausage factory. But on the whole it's mediocre, lacking the cleverness and layered wit of other talking animal films like Zootopia. The truth is, kids aren't discerning and parents are looking for things to do over the summer, so as animation gets cheaper, stuff like this gets slapped together and still does well. Still, I'd sit up, beg, and roll over for some better writing.

Movies: Zootopia

Finally got to see this one now that it's out on DVD. Everyone went on and on about how wonderful it is . . . And it is pretty great. I think it's voice cast perfectly, and while I found none of the "twists" surprising, I still enjoyed it.

I'd say this one is, for me, slightly better than Big Hero 6? Which I also loved but found rather rote and predictable. So the thing that makes Zootopia just a smidge better is that it's more original in its world building. Though I do wonder what the predators eat now? Manufactured proteins? Or has everyone gone veggie?

For the maybe two people out there who haven't seen it, Zootopia is about a bunny named Judy who dreams of becoming a police officer in the big city of Zootopia. Everyone tells her she can't; there's never been a bunny cop before. But of course she proves them wrong and then must battle prejudices while also facing the realization that, for someone so proud of herself for being open minded, she has some prejudices of her own. There are additional themes of trying even when everyone tells you to quit, and of helping others once you reach the top.

It's a super cute movie, one of the few I'd be willing to sit through again with the kids if and when they want to watch it. Then again, I could listen to Idris Elba talk all day long, so . . . While I don't know that this was laugh-out-loud funny the way some people told me it was, I did very much enjoy it.

Television: Danger Mouse (2015)

It almost goes without saying that when one grows up with something, that person is predisposed to like any "new" version of that thing less than the original. And so it goes with Danger Mouse and me.

I used to watch the original series on Nickelodeon, and I loved it. Sometimes my best friend and I would play Danger Mouse, and I would be DM and she would be Penfold. I was even thinking of being Danger Mouse for Hallowe'en a few years back; it would be such an easy costume to manage.

My kids are now quite familiar with the original series as well, having watched it extensively first on YouTube then on Netflix. So they were keen to see what the reboot would be like.

They didn't like it either.

Even my 6-year-old can tell when animation is cheap. He told me flat out he didn't like "the way they did the pictures." Though the pilot attempted to hang a lampshade on that by having Colonel K go on about not having enough money. Hmm.

The voice acting bothered me a bit. They tried to more or less replicate the original voices, but it's just off enough that I'd almost rather they had done something completely new and different rather than imitate. And Baron Greenback is now Baron Von Greenback and inexplicably German. His famous rasp, meanwhile, is not all that . . . raspy.

Overall, the whole thing gives those of us who love the original Danger Mouse a sense of having been thrust into a bizarro version of it.

To be fair, however, we've only tried the first episode. I will give the show a couple more tries before dismissing it completely.

Movies: Kung Fu Panda 3

Featuring Voices By: Jack Black, Bryan Cranston, Dustin Hoffman, Angelina Jolie
Directed By: Steve Martino
Written By: Jonathan Aibel, Glenn Berger
Dreamworks, 2016
PG; 95 minutes
4 stars (out of 5)

_______________________________________________________

The latest installment of this popular animation franchise is as cute as one might expect but lacks the tension needed to propel the plot.

The villain this time is Kai, once a brother-in-arms to Master Oogway until his greed for power rather abruptly tipped him toward the Dark Side (or whatever they have in this particular world). This is a case of the back story needing a bit more attention in order for viewers to feel it; as things stand, we take it on faith that Kai is bad, and we hardly ever see him anyway.

Oh, okay, Kai takes Master Oogway's chi in the first scene of the movie, thus reducing Master Oogway to a jade charm. We know this is not good, but we are given no other consequences except, uh . . . No one wants to be turned into a jade charm?

It's by taking the chi of all the Masters in the spirit realm that Kai is able to return to the mortal realm. Why, exactly, he wants to do that is unclear. To get more chi? To get revenge on the pandas who . . . Didn't give him chi way back when? He's after the Dragon Warrior, whose chi is ostensibly very strong. This will make Kai very strong. And . . . Something. It simply isn't laid out in a way that generates any kind of sense of foreboding. The stakes are not clear.

Meanwhile, Po finds his biological father and visits the hidden panda village and learns what it means to be a panda.

The whole idea behind the movie is somewhat amorphous. It's about finding yourself and being yourself. And about how you're never just one thing but many, collected into one being.

The animation here is beautiful, particularly the stylized spirit world and flashbacks. The humor is on point, but there isn't quite enough. More Mantis + Crane, please! More of Kai would also have been good. He had some truly funny moments, and a little more exposure might have made him seem like more of a threat. The focus on Po was almost too much; the supporting cast was much funnier than he was. And Tigress being adopted by a little panda who called her a "stripy baby" was adorable.

I did enjoy this movie, and so did my kids. But it didn't quite live up to its full potential. By the third film, it begins to feel like they're taking a few shortcuts. They shouldn't. Much as pandas hate stairs, the filmmakers should take the time to climb them.

Movies: The Peanuts Movie

Featuring Voices By: Noah Schnapp, Bill Melendez, Hadley Belle Miller, Mariel Sheets
Directed By: Steve Martino
Written By: Bryan Schulz, Craig Schulz, Cornelius Uliano from the comic strip by Charles M. Schulz
20th Century Fox, 2015
G; 93 minutes
3 stars (out of 5)

_______________________________________________________

We've entered that time in our lives (or I've at least entered that time in my life) when everything old is being made new again as corporations cash in on middle-age nostalgia. The shows and toys of my childhood are up for grabs, being reconstructed for those of us eager to share the things we loved with our own children or, if we don't have children, for those of us eager to recapture our youth.

Like many my age, I have distinct memories of Charlie Brown and his gang. There were the usual things: the Hallowe'en and Thanksgiving and Christmas specials, and the eventual Saturday-morning cartoon. Sunday funnies. But there was also the fact I'd been handed down my mother's old Charlie Brown comic books, the ones that look "weird" to those of us who knew Mr. Brown in the 80s because Schulz's style had yet to evolve:

I loved those books, read them until the covers fell off. I invariably took them on long car trips, back when I could read in the car without becoming carsick. Now I wish I still had them so my kids could read the "real" Charlie Brown (I have some of the hardbound collection but won't let the kids touch those).

As a kid, I identified with Charlie Brown, not because of his failures but because he was different—not quite an outcast, yet seemingly living on the fringes. But then I also identified with Linus, who was smart and quiet, and with Lucy, who would get so fed up with everyone, and with imaginative Snoop and artistic Schroeder . . . What I mean to say is, there are bits and pieces of all of us in each Charlie Brown character. We are none of us just one.

Charlie Brown was so ingrained in my childhood that my mother often called my father her "sweet babboo" and would say, "Isn't he just the cutest thing?" Go ahead and gag. I did.

What does any of this have to do with the movie? I only want to set the stage for my bias; I tend to balk whenever anyone mines my childhood joy for fun and profit. I don't especially want Charlie Brown to be modernized. I don't want to hear him speak with a different voice than I'm used to. I don't want him to change because I don't want my memories rewritten.

At the same time, though, it was such a treat to see my two youngest children enjoy this movie. At ages six and seven they loved it. My almost-ten-year-old was suitably embarrassed on Charlie Brown's behalf, too, hiding his face in his hands whenever good ol' CB did something dumb.

There's nothing in the movie to really besmirch my fond memories, either. The whole thing is a tad flimsy, the plot hinging on the arrival of The Little Red-Haired Girl and Charlie Brown's attempts to impress her. Many throwbacks for those of us old enough to "get it." Snoopy, of course, battles the Red Baron, though this time there is a French poodle love interest and no root beer. Sigh. I guess there was no chance it would be perfect.

It was a fine movie. Any lack of enthusiasm on my part almost certainly stems from my resistance to seeing old favorites turned over for new gain. Bottom line, though, is my kids loved it and they'll probably be wearing Joe Cool sweatshirts before long—just like I did.

Movies: Inside Out

Voices By: Amy Poehler, Phyllis Smith, Bill Hader, Lewis Black, Mindy Kaling
Directed By: Phil Docter, Ronaldo Del Carmen
Written By: Meg LaFauve, Josh Cooley & Pete Docter; Story By: Pete Docter & Ronaldo Del Carmen
Pixar, 2015
PG; 94 minutes
3.5 stars (out of 5)

_______________________________________________________

I wanted to like this movie more than I did. Which isn't to say it's a bad movie; it's not. But there is something necessarily amorphous about dealing with feelings. The action in Inside Out is . . . not very action-y. And all the jokes are pretty low-hanging fruit, so I felt this one lacked Pixar's usual cleverness.

Outwardly, this is the story of 11-year-old Riley dealing with a family move from Minnesota to San Francisco. Her parents are understandably stressed, and Riley is, too. A new school + difficulty making friends + pre-adolescence = not a fun time. Riley ping-pongs between excitement and optimism and feeling angry and sad.

But as we all know from the trailers, the "real" story is of Riley's emotions trying to cope with this new situation. Joy (Poehler in Parks and Rec form) is generally understood to be the leader, and therefore we're given to understand that Riley is usually happy and upbeat. Joy works hard to keep Sadness (Smith) at bay, but the changes in Riley's life—at least, I assume this is the catalyst—provoke Sadness into wanting to touch all Riley's happy memories and tinge them in, well, sadness.

At some point Riley's "core memories" end up . . . sucked into some other part of her brain, I guess? And Joy and Sadness go with them and are tasked with returning these memories to Headquarters. With them absent from the control room, Anger (Black), Disgust (Kaling) and Fear (Hader) must attempt to keep Riley happy though they are ill equipped to do so. The result: Riley tries to run away back to Minnesota.

The bottom line is, for me, the whole thing was a bit too vague. While it's a fair stab at the moodiness of pre-teens, and might even have made a good pseudo-story of depression, the final result lacks something. There is nothing particularly compelling about the story. It's an interesting, high-concept idea that falls flat in execution.

Joy and Sadness work their way through Riley's long-term memory and are eventually guided by an old imaginary friend (Richard Kind). They visit the place where Riley's dreams are manufactured, they ride her Train of Thought, and it all suits the plot as they are trying to get back to Headquarters, but . . . ::shrug::

Slowly, the story reveals that Sadness (and sadness) has her (its) uses. This seems to be the moral of the story, but the resolution is so watery, it doesn't come through with any punch. I'll admit I teared up a few times, but no Pixar movie is complete without those moments in which they turn the screws, and certainly a movie about emotions is going to have its fair share of those.

The end credits prove that less would have been more as we're treated to quick insights into other characters' minds and emotions. These are the funniest moments in the movie, sadly happening after it's over, with Lewis Black coming in as first runner up, and that obvious-but-still-funny boy's brain joke taking honorable mention.

All that said,  I'm sure I'm being far too analytical about it. If I just allowed myself to feel . . . Ah, forget it. Bottom line: I was excited to see Inside Out and was ultimately slightly disappointed by it. But I guess they can't all be winners. Ribbon for participating.

Movies: Big Hero 6

Voices By: Ryan Potter, Scott Adsit, T.J. Miller, Daniel Henney
Directed By: Don Hall & Chris Williams
Written By: Don Hall & Jordan Roberts (story); Robert L. Baird, Daniel Gerson & Jordan Roberts (screenplay); from the comic by Duncan Rouleau & Steven T. Seagle
Walt Disney, 2014
PG; 108 minutes
4.5 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________

An absolutely cute film that my children (ages 5, 6 and not-quite-9) loved, and that I thoroughly enjoyed aside from the somewhat simplistic plot that held no real surprises. That's why I deducted half a star.

Still, Big Hero 6 is a visual feast, and the voice acting is impeccable. My two youngest are officially in love with Baymax; my oldest is science-minded and appreciated the genius inventor angle. It probably helped that the movie is set in San Fransokyo, which looks a lot like the San Francisco we live in with a bunch of Asian touches.

I can't say anything to how this movie pairs with the comics because I haven't read them. I know Disney had to tiptoe a bit because the comic is part of the Marvel X-Men universe and Fox holds rights to certain aspects of that. I definitely have the notion that Big Hero 6 as a film is washed up a bit so as to appeal to a younger audience. That is to say, the comics probably skew a bit more mature than this movie.

In any case, the movie is about young Hiro, a 14-year-old genius with no direction in life until his older brother Tadashi takes him to visit the R&D lab at his university. Hiro decides he wants to start going to uni, too, and enters a competition to get in. His development: microbots that respond to thought via a special headband.

Meanwhile, Tadashi has created Baymax, a marshmallow-like robotic nurse. When Tadashi dies in a fire, Baymax takes it upon himself to make Hiro feel better. Tadashi's lab mates also band together to help Hiro, and when they discover someone has stolen Hiro's microbot tech . . . That's when the Big Hero 6 bit comes in. Hiro, Baymax, and the four lab rats formulate a superhero team to take out the villain.

As I mentioned, the "twists" are utterly predictable, but on the whole the movie is adorable and enjoyable despite this.

Big Hero 6 also featured an animated short that ran before it, Feast, about a dog's perspective from being rescued from the streets through watching his [male] human companion love, lose, love again, and have a family. A very sweet little morsel, so to speak. The two make a fine pairing. Add popcorn and Junior Mints for maximum enjoyment.

Movies: The Book of Life

Voices By: Diego Luna, Zoe Saldana, Channing Tatum
Directed By: Jorge R. Gutierrez
Written By: Jorge R. Gutierrez & Douglas Langdale
Reel FX, 2014
PG; 95 minutes
3.5 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________

Definitely a different look and feel to this movie than most other children's animated features these days. And I love that The Book of Life introduces my kids to a different culture. The story, too, was pretty cute: La Muerte and Xibalba make a wager on which of two young boys would grow up to marry their friend Maria (voiced by Zoe Saldana). La Muerte chooses Manolo Sanchez (Diego Luna) while Xibalba selects Joaquin (Channing Tatum).

The stylized animation of having the characters look like wooden puppets is quite visually interesting. I have a thing about noses, though, so some of the character designs did not appeal to me. That's a personal bias, of course. On the whole, the use of color and such was well done.

I did find some of the reworked pop songs a bit distracting, though. They just pulled me right out of the story. Sure, I like the songs, and I wouldn't say no to the soundtrack, but as used in the movie they called too much attention to themselves.

And then there was the voice acting. I know it's not a science and is largely subjective. But while the supporting cast was great (Ron Perlman, Cheech Marin, Ice Cube, Plácido Domingo all spring to mind), I definitely had a sense the main three were . . . I don't know. It wasn't quite there for me. Channing Tatum just sounded like himself, so that I kept picturing Channing Tatum with a mustache, and it wasn't a pretty mental image. There was such monotony in the dialogue with him. I wonder if he literally phoned it in.

But again, that's all subjective. The film itself is cute and different, and my kids came out of it mostly happy, though they also said it was "a little weird." My daughter had trouble figuring out who she was supposed to be cheering for and who was the bad guy. But Día de los Muertos is not so different from our All Saints in New Orleans, so it's nice to have a place to start from when talking to them about things like that.

The Book of Life also sort of made me wish for a children's version of the Eurydice and Orpheus tale. Though I suppose that would need a happier ending. But hey, if The Little Mermaid can have a happily ever after . . .

Television: Persona 4 (2011)

Started watching this on Hulu and (if you'll excuse the pun) got sucked in. I haven't watched anime in a really long time, but hey, this one has Tarot cards! And like so many anime, it has a convoluted plot that still somehow manages to be highly entertaining.

The story, best as I can follow, goes something like this: Narukami Yu (I'm doing this in the Japanese style with surname first) moves out of the big city to live with his uncle and cousin for a year while his parents are abroad. The town he moves to is sometimes covered in fog, and this usually coincides with some kind of death or murder. There's also something called "Midnight TV," where if you watch at midnight on a rainy night, you will supposedly see your soul mate. Narukami tries this one night and nearly gets sucked into the television set, but (luckily?) the set is too small for him to fit through.

When he mentions as much to the two classmates who have more or less adopted him as a new friend, they suggest going to the Junes—basically their version of a Wal-Mart—and trying one of the big-screen TVs on display. And so all three promptly get sucked in. Well, in Fushigi Yuugi it was an ancient book or scroll or whatever, so . . . ::shrug::

Shadow creatures attack. Tarot cards begin turning up to lend their "personas" to our adventurous heroes. And Narukami realizes the girl he saw on the television was the next to die; turns out, the person you see is not your soul mate so much as the next victim.

Has all the markings of a Japanese horror movie, really. But with a fantasy/anime twist.

The anime is based on a video game, but since I don't play video games, I can't really say much about the connection(s) between the two. I only know I find the anime very good, and am grateful Hulu offers it subtitled because I hate dubs.

I'm already sad thinking I'll eventually catch up and won't have any more episodes to watch . . .

Movies: Double Features

Lately I've been thinking about movie pairings. You know, just like some people would think about food and wine pairings, I've been thinking about movies that make good back-to-back viewings.

When I was a kid, it was practically required that we watch The Last Unicorn and Labyrinth at every sleepover. So that's probably my first experience with pairing up movies. Though, thinking about it now, I do feel The Neverending Story works better with either The Last Unicorn or Labyrinth, more so than TLU and Labyrinth do together. Both TNS and Labyrinth have the Creature Shop factor to tie them together. Meanwhile, there's something similar in tone in TNS and TLU.

You see I take this seriously.

Of course, some movies are natural mates. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan must necessarily be followed with Star Trek III: The Search for Spock. And the Star Wars and Indiana Jones movies . . . Any series, really. But when you are dealing with something as massive as Star Trek, I can personally suggest Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home be paired with Star Trek: First Contact, as these share the time travel theme. I watched them both the other night and they played well together.

It's relatively easy to pair sci-fi type films. For sci-fi comedy, I tried Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and Galaxy Quest, and they were a good duo.

But what if you don't want action or sci-fi? The most common thing, then, is to either choose an actor or a genre (or both) and go from there. My friends and I did The Innocents and The Haunting for a chilling evening of entertainment. To see Cary Grant get knotted up over ex-wives, go for The Awful Truth and His Girl Friday (where Grant plays against Ralph Bellamy in both). If you're looking for more modern rom-com, My Best Friend's Wedding + Runaway Bride works pretty well.

Harder to pair is drama, because so many dramatic movies can feel "heavy," and it can be difficult to watch more than one. You could maybe pick any two Coen Brothers movies, though many of those are more dark comedy than drama. Or you could do one drama and one comedy, like Steel Magnolias followed by some other Julia Roberts movie to lift your spirits. I know at least one person who really hates Julia Roberts, though, so maybe I should come up with another example . . . St. Elmo's Fire and Sixteen Candles?

You could pick movies based on stage plays. Arsenic and Old Lace and Rope, for example. Or throw in Suddenly, Last Summer with one of those. California Suite and Sleuth (I recommend the 1972 version). Or, keeping with Michael Caine, Sleuth and Deathtrap. (Actually, I believe Caine was also in California Suite . . .)

Taking that up a notch, musicals are fun features, too. However, many musicals have a longer running time, so be sure you take that into account if you're planning back-to-back viewings of, say, My Fair Lady and Camelot.

I could go on and on, of course. There are infinite combinations to suit every whim and mood. I'm only here to say what's worked for me (Secret of NIMH + Anastasia, if you like Don Bluth). I'd love to hear what you come up with.